Census population estimates 2011-2019

[Torie]

New CA numbers for July 1, 2015 came out yesterday:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/documents/pressrelease_package_Jul15.pdf

My goodness, Orange and San Diego counties have below average growth in CA, while San Francisco is considerably above it. Hip inner city urban areas are the cat's meow now.

[Torie]

How close is NY to the cusp given your latest projections? I ask, because my little CD will have a very new design given the shape of the state and where I am, if it loses a CD. It will become a much more suburban CD. And Nolan in MN-08 will be happy if MN loses a CD. His CD per your rules is slated to become more Dem as it loses Pub areas on its south end.

[Torie]

"For New York, 1/27 is about 4%, or 0.8% for the remaining 5 years until 2020. It would need to increase to 1.27% per year to gain a seat, or decline by 0.33% per year to lose two seats. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing two. Similarly Florida is quite solid at gaining either one or two."

Based on the above, it appears to me that NY is quite solid to lose one, and only one, seat. What am I missing? Your figures represent pretty substantial changes in growth rates, and my impression is that the 9 upstate seats are pretty stable at having no growth up or down, thereby requiring a higher change in the NYC metro area to make a difference. I guess maybe NY could lose two seats, if Wall Street takes another rather long enduring dump.

[Torie]

OK, thanks. Giving the the nine upstate NY CD's are so stably stagnant, NYC metro growth would have to increase by a pretty brisk rate to avoid losing a seat, putting aside your footrace comment. Any NY growth slowed down this last year didn't it, suggesting NYC metro area growth is slowing down, which makes sense given Wall Street is slowing down, and now slowing down some more.

[Torie]

If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.

[Torie]

If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.

I looked at that when the numbers came out. Compared to the five-year data the only change I project is that CA stays the same and FL gets +2 instead of +1. AZ 10 was the last seat in that projection and CA 54 is the next.

It looks like in NY, if the same slow growth of the last two years persists until the end of the census cycle, and the population of the 9 upstate CD's stays the same, that NY-18 just takes Columbia County (still about 7,000 short, but that can be fudged), with a pack penalty incurred, while NY-17 retains Sullivan County.

[Torie]

In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?

[Torie]

Any surprises affecting reapportionment?

I’ll leave that up to the experts.

Pennsylvania passed Illinois and is now the 5th largest state.

It is kind of shocking to read about PA passing another state in this department. When it happens, you know that the "passee" is in a sad state (yeah is in a sad state works too).  I wonder when Muon2 is moving out. I mean, I don't think he needs to be there anymore a year hence, and his kids live in the northeast I think. 

[Torie]

I see that the growth of NYC has come to a grinding halt, with a 7,272 increase from 7-1-16 to 7-1-17 (with the formally relatively dynamic Brooklyn having lost 2,088, perhaps as the worst ratio of income to housing prices in the nation begins to bite). Every county in the state now has a substantially stagnant population. The NYC metro area as defined by Jimrtex drops from 17.92 seats to 17.88 seats as a projection to 2020.

[Torie]

You probably already knew this, but sometime this month. Last year, it was May 23.

[Torie]

May 24 is the date that the masses get to see the locality population estimates.

[Torie]

The Northeast region as a whole lost population last year.    10 states lost population too,  one higher than last year. 

New York lost almost 77k people, does that mean it'll lose two congressional districts?

Its looking extremely likely at this point.

And one could make the argument that both seats should come at the expense of Upstate New York.

The math doesn’t add up for two upstate losses. The more likely result is that one seat upstate is lost along with one Long Island/East NYC seat.

The math might not add up to 2 lost seats at all. NY-26 is literally on the bubble in many of the analyses I've seen.

I'd bet that it will lose 2, though.

Cinyc, what odds do you place on NY losing 2 seats rather than 1? Whether NY loses two CD's or one has a big impact on the options for the border of the current NY-19 given NY's funnel shape.  NY clearly has the oddest shape of all 50 states in my opinion.

How accurate is the census when it asks where one lived on April 1 four months later? Is there any data that addresses that issue? I assume there will be more late responses this year than in the past.

[Torie]

Cinyc, what odds do you place on NY losing 2 seats rather than 1? Whether NY loses two CD's or one has a big impact on the options for the border of the current NY-19 given NY's funnel shape.  NY clearly has the oddest shape of all 50 states in my opinion.

How accurate is the census when it asks where one lived on April 1 four months later? Is there any data that addresses that issue? I assume there will be more late responses this year than in the past.

Given the COVID-related escape from NYC (especially Manhattan), I think NYC losing 2 seats is a lot more likely than the 2019 estimates and forecasts say. I'd almost bet on it.

There's a thread on the General board about Census' efforts. I haven't updated my interactive map vs 2010 in a while, but areas of NYC - especially on the Upper East Side near Central Park - were really lagging their 2010 response rates in mid-May. Response rates haven't increased much since.

Thank you.  Except isn't most of the great escape from NYC after April 1? Is your opinion in part premised that those who fled will not fill out the form stating that they lived in NY on April 1 even if they did? Due to the great escape the Hudson rental market is doing very well these days. A lot of over priced listings also appeared as property owners try to cash in. Whether or not their pecuniary dreams come true remains to be seen.

[Torie]

Normally the Census would be releasing the actual 2020 Census apportionment data next week, and not the Jul 1, 2020 estimates. Due to the expected delay in the release of the apportionment data, we can look at these estimates that do not include any 2020 Census data. It will be interesting to compare this to the actual Census population when they are released.

So, here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used these July 2020 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This accounts for a 10 and a quarter year period between the 2010 Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

AL and NY have switched seats compared to last year, so that AL would have no change and NY would lose 2 seats. I tested the possibility that inclusion of the Covid-19 fatalities in NY between April 1 and July 1 would affect the result. I added the July 1 NY fatality count to my April 1 projection, and it made NY closer to AL but did not change the overall projection.

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, CA-52, FL-29, TX-39, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-26, OH-16, MN-8, CA-53, and VA-12.

What numbers are we talking about for AL and NY to switch back with this estimate vis a vis the actual census figures? Is it 5,000 people or 15,000 people? Yes I know the final numbers for all the states matter.

[Torie]

Thank you for your skilled number crunching Muon2.

[Torie]

Normally the Census would be releasing the actual 2020 Census apportionment data next week, and not the Jul 1, 2020 estimates. Due to the expected delay in the release of the apportionment data, we can look at these estimates that do not include any 2020 Census data. It will be interesting to compare this to the actual Census population when they are released.

So, here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used these July 2020 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This accounts for a 10 and a quarter year period between the 2010 Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

AL and NY have switched seats compared to last year, so that AL would have no change and NY would lose 2 seats. I tested the possibility that inclusion of the Covid-19 fatalities in NY between April 1 and July 1 would affect the result. I added the July 1 NY fatality count to my April 1 projection, and it made NY closer to AL but did not change the overall projection.

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, CA-52, FL-29, TX-39, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-26, OH-16, MN-8, CA-53, and VA-12.

I used 3/4 of the difference between the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 estimates. The growth assumption in your method assumes that the 2020 is reliable for calculating the annual growth rate, but that the 2019 estimate was not accurate and should be ignored.

I think the federal overseas population will be about 1/2 of what it was in 2010, but I did not include it.

432 MT 1.005
433 FL 1.003
434 TX 1.002
435 NY 1.002
-------------
436 AL 1.001
437 MN 0.996
438 OH 0.995
439 RI 0.985

The bolded states can be considered bubble states. NY is at risk of losing a second seat, while FL would be limited to +1, and TX would be limited to +2, while AL would stay at 7.

CA shot off the table making it certain that it will lose a seat, and for 2030 we may be looking at loss of multiple seats. CA gained +300K every year for the first five years, but has gone +245K, +188K, +100K, 0K, -69K for the last 5.

NY started of +100K in 2011, but gradually lost steam and has been (increasingly negative for the last five years). The loss of -127K for 2020 was almost equal to the combined loss of 130K for 2018+2019. The loss for 2020 also put NY negative for the decade.

AL had a "U" shape pattern, with perhaps enough to hold on to the 7th seat. It could be a state that benefits by inclusion the federal overseas population is overwhelmingly military and dependents, compared to NY.

"I used 3/4 of the difference between the July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020 estimates. The growth assumption in your method assumes that the 2020 is reliable for calculating the annual growth rate, but that the 2019 estimate was not accurate and should be ignored."

If the July, 2019 estimate is bad, why are you apparently also using it?

I myself was hesitant on projecting forward from a rate that was over a period of close to a decade, when more recent trends may have been quite different. But then covid hit, and what had happened recently before might not be very useful at all as a rate line.